+1 On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:18 AM, John Levine wrote: >>> ANNEX A - MUA Considerations >> >> Is a draft about mailing lists the right place to make recommendations >> to MUA developers? Seems like those should probably be in a separate >> document. > > No, but the entire document is riddled with advice that has no basis > in experience and is unlikely ever to be implemented. > > We have a serious problem that people in this group have deeply > incompatible ideas of what DKIM does. A lot of the arguments seem to > be from people who believe that a DKIM signature can or should > identify the individual author of a message, and that subscribers to > mailing lists need assurances about the identity of list authors > beyond the minimal level that has been adequate for the past twenty > years. I have trouble understanding how anyone who is familiar with > DKIM or with the operation of mailing lists could hold these > positions, but it is quite obvious that some do. > > At this point, unless we can cut back the MLM document to stick to > items that we have consensus about, e.g., that it is typical for > signatures applied to incoming mail not to verify after a message > passes through an MLM, and that it would be nice if a list or its MTA > signed its outgoing mail, I don't think we will produce anything that > is useful to anyone. > > R's, > John > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
